Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

The Gaulin replies....

†

Quote

That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't. Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.

Ha. The people on that forum are just as perplexed and frustrated dealing with this numbnut as we are. From that other forum:

Quote

This call for scientific refutation of unsupportable babbling is the last refuge of the terminally confused. You have no idea where your thought processes have led you, you cannot explain where you are, and no one can find you. You are lost.

Like here, they keep trying to explain to gary that he doesn't have a theory they can refute, and like here, Gary thinks he's triumphing.

"the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that."

Could I have this translated into syntactically correct English, please? †Perhaps a complete thought will then emerge.

Seeing how some seem to think there must be something fascinating in that one, I'll try to explain it another way.

Expectations were that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come out of a biological lab where lab results are published in a peer reviewed journal, and all the rest you already know by heart.

But meanwhile, there was the Intelligence Generator model that came with included (now looks crappy but better than nothing) operational theory. That model combined with the ID work to become the Intelligence Design Lab that was next born at Planet Source Code. Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional. None there want lab papers, wrong place for publishing that. So as fate has it, the theory had to come from where it did, and belongs. To help make my last New Year one to remember Ian let me know that (to spite the ruckus from a little outside protest) I'm always welcome anytime. It's home because the theory genuinely most needs that type of environment to thrive, and probably always will.

Where you ask where the lab results are, you get the Intelligent Design Lab with included operational theory to explain how to apply that intelligent causation events and more. It's not overturning what was already found to be true in the lab, it's (for example) how to organize all the circuitry needing to be sorted out in a standard multilevel circuit form that works for unintelligent particle systems on up to living things with brains. It makes the sciences easier to connect and model. And as I earlier mentioned it is pioneering new areas of science, not overcoming areas already covered by another theory. Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

I notice the next sentence in the big block of babble begins "Hopefully that better translates..."

Gary, have you considered writing while sober? It might help.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... ¬†The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Oh, we long ago stopped expecting anything from you to pass peer-review, Gary, since you've made nearly 200 comments and we have no idea what you theory is. You're literally the most incoherent advocate for Intelligent Design we've ever seen.

Gary, there is no evidence that would contradict your "theory," because your "theory" is unfalsifiable. It's not coherent enough to be falsifiable.

We've already been through this. You could not think of a single prediction your "theory" makes, nor could you think of a single observation which would in your view falsify it.

The Gaulin replies....

†

Quote

That is NOT a scientific excuse for having no evidence to the contrary, it is pretending to have evidence when you don't. Like with Bob's tactic it might fool some of the people some of the time, but I think most are now understanding what is going on here.

They sure have/had a troll problem there too. But is still birthplace of the Intelligence Design Lab with of course the BobaBot critter which does somehow resemble their large font pop-art posts. When someone dropped in representing academia to look serious but it didn't work, Boba tells on me for playing YouTube videos. Total classroom wise-guy, but usually had good timing.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this:

Quote

Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this:

Quote

Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.

I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out. But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Oh, we long ago stopped expecting anything from you to pass peer-review, Gary, since you've made nearly 200 comments and we have no idea what you theory is. You're literally the most incoherent advocate for Intelligent Design we've ever seen.

That's the usual trash I'm left with, where the issue is then grammar and typo's instead of the theory, which of course they can't figure out either. But I love the "we have no idea what you theory is" part! A classic troll!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Oh, we long ago stopped expecting anything from you to pass peer-review, Gary, since you've made nearly 200 comments and we have no idea what you theory is. You're literally the most incoherent advocate for Intelligent Design we've ever seen.

That's the usual trash I'm left with, where the issue is then grammar and typo's instead of the theory, which of course they can't figure out either. But I love the "we have no idea what you theory is" part! A classic troll!

Maybe you'd be left with people discussing your theory, if you presented one for discussion.

How many dozen scientists have to call you incoherent before you realize that maybe the problem isn't with them?

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional.

....

Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.

Yes. †Thank you. †That clarifies things immensely.

I now understand what we are dealing with.

--------------DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

Still talking about the life cycles of the invisible unicorns but nothing about how they explain the world better than a world without invisible unicorns.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. † † †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. † † † †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

Be that as it may be. How does your theory explain that the vast majority of infected cells die while some (very few indeed) survive? Remember that the bacteria are derived from a single cell and all phages in the system are derived from a single phage. How do the surviving cells differ from their relatives in terms of what you think is "intelligence"? And how does this "intelligence" make them survive?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Are you really saying, Gary, that you are measuring stomach contents and memory on the same y-axis scale? †What unit is shared by those two things?

The stomach system varies from 0 to full that can be considered 3. It's possible to get all fancy or smooth out the line but what I show is all you need. It's supposed to be a minimal code system. This helps keep it simple, is easy to add to.

When you have the algorithm for the first time producing intelligence, you know it. †Instead of more flat-line looking confidences including from zombie-like tropism that at first appears intelligent (but is not) the confidence curves go up exponentially with successful memories being stored in memory, it literally "comes to life" for you. But would have had to experience it, to really know what I'm talking about. Even where it just races around the screen once it's intelligent it's like a whole other thing you are seeing on the screen, that when brought into our reality has to be respected because of what it then is, highly controlling intelligence.

So it's meaningless. Thanks for explaining that in less than 300 words.

OK, I think I get it.

Anything with "behavior" is intelligent. Since cells and molecules have "behavior", they are intelligent.

Can I interest you in a money making plan I've been working on?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

It was a wise PT'er who once said words to the effect of "just because I can make a piggy bank doesn't mean pigs were designed".

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. † † †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

I kept it general, and covered a range of phages, so I could later copy/paste that into the text of the theory.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. † † † †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

I kept it general, and covered a range of phages, so I could later copy/paste that into the text of the theory.

Still, I would be interested what your theory has to say about my later question:

Quote

How does your theory explain that the vast majority of infected cells die while some (very few indeed) survive? Remember that the bacteria are derived from a single cell and all phages in the system are derived from a single phage. How do the surviving cells differ from their relatives in terms of what you think is "intelligence"? And how does this "intelligence" make them survive?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

This theory does not meet expectations because of it not having been considered that a Theory of Intelligent Design would have to come from a place like Planet Source Code where what is most important is the source code, perfect grammar optional.

....

Only makes sense it would not come from somewhere you're not used to, that you here need to be to really get around in the science being pioneered. It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

Hopefully that better translates why meeting expectations that the theory must be judged by its peer-reviewed lab journal published results is rather pointless. It becomes a way of making it seem like it's a crime for not instead having brought lab results to someone just being pompous.

Yes. †Thank you. †That clarifies things immensely.

I now understand what we are dealing with.

Itís hard to tell whether youíre being serious or not. But in this case there was an Intelligence Generator in great need of better explained text for its Theory Of Operation, that took on a life of its own after having to explain the modeling of intelligent causation events, and other things that are only possible with this model.

Even though that is just how the science works out, by any other title Iím accused of dishonestly slipping the theory in under radar. Where I title it Theory of Intelligent Design Iím condemned for calling it what it honestly became.

What I got stuck in the middle of made it clearly obvious that science went to hell via arm-chair philosophy that can stop any politically inconvenient scientific theory. Constantly being expected to perform religious miracles is only indication of how disgracefully messed up things actually are. Scientific theory is no longer explaining how something works using scientific models, itís a question and answer religious tribunal where scientific models cannot be accepted.

Even though itís what you might consider a stick in the mud place Planet Source Code is here at the aid of science, at a time when ones who were supposed to be helping settle this scientific issue were scientifically useless. Sorry for having to be as honest as I possibly can.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

the worst thing about it is that fucking planet source code image is hotlinked from their site!

Gary, upload it to imageshack or something for pitys sake!

I have to admit that was a good idea. It now links to the intelligenceprograms site, both from here and other forum where I have it in the signature line getting some hits. It started as a spur of the moment idea, to see how it would look, that ended up staying.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Again:Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages. † † † † † †

Quote

But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

T2 is a virulent phage that never integrates into the host genome.Phages are virusses and have nothing to do with mitochondria which don't exist in bacteria and are actually a hallmark of eukaryotes. In addition, irrespective of the fact that they don't exist in bacteria and that the cell would be to small to harbor any what would make a mitochondrium beneficial for an E.coli cell?

Be that as it may be. How does your theory explain that the vast majority of infected cells die while some (very few indeed) survive? Remember that the bacteria are derived from a single cell and all phages in the system are derived from a single phage. How do the surviving cells differ from their relatives in terms of what you think is "intelligence"? And how does this "intelligence" make them survive?

The theory explains why the vast majority of infected cells die while some survive, by modeling it. And it looks like you're the one most into the T2 phage process. So model it as described in theory then show what you end up with for changing circuits and variables over the course of the infection cycle(s).

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I can add that itís not necessary to reinvent an existing model. Itís how the circuit is drawn out that is most important. †The ďset-pointsĒ of metabolic pathways that can induce transposition or hypermutation belong up top in its Hedonic System as a confidence level hooked up to a guess block for that type of guess. Information from conjugation may end up in a plasmid/chromosome RAM, where the data can include data that inactivates the gene data, or increases expression level. What you end up with for circuit diagram(s) is then comparable to others sorted out to show the self-learning intelligence system existing in the system being modeled.

For molecular intelligence you end up having to include 3D address changing (as opposed to data changing) transposition guesses in a genome memory system. Exactly how to draw that in might require some experimentation, but there are already methods for illustrating metabolic pathway circuits. You donít have to reinvent the wheel, just be the first to most neatly draw out the circuits including transposition and other things that in any model is hard to show in cognitive model circuit form. You here in turn end up helping to pioneer standard methods needed for systems biology.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I went through what else I had online to help explain. I have one below for showing the typical David Heiserman type circuitry from his book ďHow to Build Your Own Self-Programming RobotĒ:

I keep the next one for Spark 2 to show an insect based cognitive system. Note the sensory to the left that includes internal state variables and preprocessing, into mushroom body RAM that connects to motors. Above that is the central complex and what they called a decision layer, in the ID model that is the confidence circuitry. †

Since a genome is also a self-learning system (with sensing into memory that controls molecular motor systems) itís following what the cognitive sciences and robotics has for drawing out the circuit you have. Hereís a good example of what cell sensory looks like when similarly drawn:

You could just draw metabolic pathways like that to left, with the DNA-RAM (genes) in the center, then to the right the motors (molecular system that causes change in action or produce forces that do work inside the cell).

For molecular intelligence, the guess part of the circuit is mysterious, but still relatively straightforward. There is just not much known about how transpositions and other guess producing mechanisms work. But itís then being at the forefront of that knowledge, having already established the circuit to make sense of what it is for, in the circuit.

Where the circuit is further morphed to include Arnold Trehubís model for the human brain (that works well for chemotaxis too) we get the newest illustration to show the full intelligent causation model.

A cell biologist ends up on the same page with whatís happening in other science fields for drawing out circuits, and what's at Planet Source Code where that concept was already taken to the level of Theory of Intelligent Design. The reason others have no problem with that, is because it is in fact a darn good all-purpose cognitive model, that works so good it can cover intelligent causation too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.